Decision in Ohio v. Clark avoids putting educators in law enforcement role

NEA President: Mandatory reporting laws are there to protect abused, neglected children

WASHINGTON - June 18, 2015 -

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling today in Ohio v. Clark, which raised the question of whether a child’s statement to his teacher about being a victim of abuse is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution against his abuser because teachers and other educators should be considered law enforcement officials when they carry out their duty to report suspected abuse or neglect. The National Education Association filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the state’s view that educators’ valuable role as mandatory reporters and caregivers should not be compromised. In a unanimous decision, the Court agreed and ruled against putting educators in a law enforcement role.

“We are pleased the Court recognized what educators have long understood—namely, that mandatory reporting laws aren’t about prosecuting crimes, but are there to protect abused or neglected children and to ensure those children and their families get the help and support they deserve.

“As we argued in our amicus brief, this case could have had a chilling effect on teacher-student interactions. Teachers aren’t cops. To confuse those two roles could have hampered educators’ ability to help their students. Today’s decision by the Court helps brings some clarity to this area.

“These brave Ohio educators did what was necessary to protect the safety of one of their students, just as educators across the country do in similar circumstances every day.”

The National Education Association is the nation’s largest professional employee organization, representing
more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, school administrators, retired educators and students preparing to become teachers. Find out more at www.nea.org.

COMMENTS:

Add Your Comment

RELATED ITEMS

Generated Articles

Supreme Court allows children's indirect testimony in child abuse cases
By Richard Wolf and Brad Heath, USA TODAY, June 18, 2015
Educators’ groups applauded the decision allowing teachers to protect their students. “This case could have had a chilling effect on teacher-student interactions,” said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association. “Teachers aren’t cops. To confuse those two roles could have hampered educators’ ability to help their students.”

By Sabrina Eaton, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, June 18, 2015
The National Education Association teacher’s union, which feared the case could have a chilling effect on teacher-student interactions, said the ruling clarifies that teachers aren’t police. “We are pleased the Court recognized what educators have long understood - namely, that mandatory reporting laws aren’t about prosecuting crimes, but are there to protect abused or neglected children and to ensure those children and their families get the help and support they deserve,” said a statement from NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

Court: Convicted Abuser Had No Right to Cross-Examine Child (Subscription needed to access article),
By Marcia Coyle, National Law Journal, June 18, 2015
Statements by very young children or to persons other than law enforcement officials will rarely trigger a criminal defendant's right to confront his accuser at trial, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

‘Teachers aren't cops’: Unions praise Supreme Court rulingBy Jason Russell, Washington Examiner, June 19, 2015
“We are pleased the [Supreme] Court recognized what educators have long understood — namely, that mandatory reporting laws aren’t about prosecuting crimes, but are there to protect abused or neglected children and to ensure those children and their families get the help and support they deserve,” Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, said. “Teachers aren’t cops. To confuse those two roles could have hampered educators’ ability to help their students.” The NEA filed an amicus brief in support of Ohio’s position.

[Poll name]

Email A Friend

Send This article to:

Enter the e-mail address of the recipient. Multiple addresses need to be separated by commas (200 characters max).

Add your message (optional):

Enter your e-mail address (required):

NEA respects your privacy! Your e-mail address, and that of your recipient, will be used only in the case of transmission errors and to let the recipient know who sent the story. The information will not be used for any other purpose.